http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/mean-spirited-bad-economics/?ref=economy
This article discusses the reality about unemployment and the aid families receive when they lose a job at no fault to their own. Within the article the author states some historical facts about the reasoning and logic behind the implementation of unemployment insurance. The author states that currently republicans are trying to cut unemployment insurance believing that it will force people to get back to work quicker. As of now, long term unemployment is at its highest in recent history and by cutting down the time in which people receive unemployment insurance people will be put in even more of a bind. On the other hand, we could help these people that need the insurance and help them get back to work, where they will then have more disposable income to spend. The Obama administration has yet to take action to this matter as well, even though he preaches that we help low to middle class families. The title of this article, "Mean-Spirited, Bad Economics", infers that these new policies are heartless and expose the negative side of competition and shows that a small group of people hold more power that the large group of people currently unemployed.
3 comments:
While it is true that being on unemployment insurance can stop people from taking jobs they would normally take, this is under normal economic circumstances. As the article points out, the loss of jobs in the last few years is the greatest since the Great Depression. Many people are simply not able to get jobs because there are not enough. I find it doubtful that currently there are people who are turning down job offers on a very large scale. Many people are simply unable to get jobs, so I believe that it would not be bad to extend unemployment benefits further. If you cannot get a job through no fault of your own, you should not have to live with no source of income.
This is an interesting article. Republicans want to limit and cut unemployment benefits to solve two things: 1) get people back to work and 2)solve the problem we are facing that we are running out of unemployment benefits.
Will cutting the benefits accomplish this? I believe it will accomplish about 62.5% of their goals. It will solve the problem "that the US is running out of unemployment benefits to had out, however it will only solve, in my opinion, 1/4 of the problem of getting people back to work.
Yes, I believe that some people are not looking for work because it is just too hard and are milking the benefits -- but I believe the number of people doing that is pretty small (1/4 is being generous prolly too high.) I believe if they do this you will see the Unemployment rate drop in THEORY however it wont really move and it might get worse. Why? because the UR only tracts the amount of people actively seeking a job economists estimate the actual amount of people out a jobs is around 15%. Once they cut unemployment benefits, I believe the people that are seeking jobs and included in the 8% will just stop seeking all together (because you have to be seeking in order to get unemployment benefits) because they lost one of their incentives.
The government should provide these "extended benefits". I understand the top 1% argument in that why should they pay for someone who is not working or trying to work. However, I believe the rich, middle, and poor share that thought. Their are so many people who work day in and day out trying to find work but can't or found something but its not enough to survive. In these cases, the government must extend their benefits. I would rather know that I am helping people survive even if I'm helping people riding the tails of the government. At least we would know we're acting as loving human beings for the people who struggle every day to support themselves and family.
Post a Comment